National institute of family and life advocates (NIFLA) : V. Becerra, or the right to be informed about your own reproductive rights.
La Corte Suprema americana emitió su decisión en el caso NIFLA v. Becerra, con una votación de 5 a 4, que sostiene que el estado de California no puede obligar a los centros de recursos para el embarazo a hacer publicidad de los servicios de aborto del estado. Esta decisión representa una victoria c...
- Autores:
-
Ivone, Vitulia
- Tipo de recurso:
- Article of journal
- Fecha de publicación:
- 2019
- Institución:
- Universidad Católica de Colombia
- Repositorio:
- RIUCaC - Repositorio U. Católica
- Idioma:
- eng
- OAI Identifier:
- oai:repository.ucatolica.edu.co:10983/29986
- Acceso en línea:
- https://doi.org/10.14718/SoftPower.2019.6.2.18
- Palabra clave:
- Aborto
Salud
Derechos
Abortion
Health
Rights
- Rights
- openAccess
- License
- Vitulia Ivone - 2019
| id |
UCATOLICA2_c5f19b03ad2628462d6932c43822b4e8 |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:repository.ucatolica.edu.co:10983/29986 |
| network_acronym_str |
UCATOLICA2 |
| network_name_str |
RIUCaC - Repositorio U. Católica |
| repository_id_str |
|
| dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv |
National institute of family and life advocates (NIFLA) : V. Becerra, or the right to be informed about your own reproductive rights. |
| dc.title.translated.eng.fl_str_mv |
National institute of family and life advocates (NIFLA) : V. Becerra, or the right to be informed about your own reproductive rights. |
| title |
National institute of family and life advocates (NIFLA) : V. Becerra, or the right to be informed about your own reproductive rights. |
| spellingShingle |
National institute of family and life advocates (NIFLA) : V. Becerra, or the right to be informed about your own reproductive rights. Aborto Salud Derechos Abortion Health Rights |
| title_short |
National institute of family and life advocates (NIFLA) : V. Becerra, or the right to be informed about your own reproductive rights. |
| title_full |
National institute of family and life advocates (NIFLA) : V. Becerra, or the right to be informed about your own reproductive rights. |
| title_fullStr |
National institute of family and life advocates (NIFLA) : V. Becerra, or the right to be informed about your own reproductive rights. |
| title_full_unstemmed |
National institute of family and life advocates (NIFLA) : V. Becerra, or the right to be informed about your own reproductive rights. |
| title_sort |
National institute of family and life advocates (NIFLA) : V. Becerra, or the right to be informed about your own reproductive rights. |
| dc.creator.fl_str_mv |
Ivone, Vitulia |
| dc.contributor.author.spa.fl_str_mv |
Ivone, Vitulia |
| dc.subject.spa.fl_str_mv |
Aborto Salud Derechos |
| topic |
Aborto Salud Derechos Abortion Health Rights |
| dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv |
Abortion Health Rights |
| description |
La Corte Suprema americana emitió su decisión en el caso NIFLA v. Becerra, con una votación de 5 a 4, que sostiene que el estado de California no puede obligar a los centros de recursos para el embarazo a hacer publicidad de los servicios de aborto del estado. Esta decisión representa una victoria considerable tanto para el derecho a la libertad de expresión como para los derechos de conciencia de las asociaciones estadounidenses pro-vida. El caso se refería a la Ley sobre la Reproducción de California, que ordenaba que tanto las clínicas de salud para mujeres con licencia como las que no tienen licencia (centros de recursos para embarazadas en crisis) que no realizan abortos deben proporcionar un aviso escrito previamente a los clientes. Aunque la ley se relacionaba específicamente con el aborto, la libertad de expresión era el tema fundamental en juego. Este trabajo analiza la historia del aborto en la legislación estadounidense y la perspectiva de uno de sus derechos civiles fundamentales. |
| publishDate |
2019 |
| dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-07-01T00:00:00Z |
| dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-07-01T00:00:00Z |
| dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-07-01 |
| dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv |
Artículo de revista |
| dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1 |
| dc.type.coar.eng.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| dc.type.coarversion.eng.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
| dc.type.content.eng.fl_str_mv |
Text |
| dc.type.driver.eng.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| dc.type.local.eng.fl_str_mv |
Journal article |
| dc.type.redcol.eng.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREF |
| dc.type.version.eng.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| format |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv |
10.14718/SoftPower.2019.6.2.18 |
| dc.identifier.eissn.none.fl_str_mv |
2539-2239 |
| dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv |
2389-8232 |
| dc.identifier.url.none.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.14718/SoftPower.2019.6.2.18 |
| identifier_str_mv |
10.14718/SoftPower.2019.6.2.18 2539-2239 2389-8232 |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.14718/SoftPower.2019.6.2.18 |
| dc.language.iso.eng.fl_str_mv |
eng |
| language |
eng |
| dc.relation.bitstream.none.fl_str_mv |
https://editorial.ucatolica.edu.co/index.php/SoftP/article/download/3576/3280 |
| dc.relation.citationedition.spa.fl_str_mv |
Núm. 12 , Año 2019 :Julio - Diciembre |
| dc.relation.citationendpage.none.fl_str_mv |
346 |
| dc.relation.citationissue.spa.fl_str_mv |
12 |
| dc.relation.citationstartpage.none.fl_str_mv |
322 |
| dc.relation.citationvolume.spa.fl_str_mv |
6 |
| dc.relation.ispartofjournal.spa.fl_str_mv |
Soft Power |
| dc.relation.references.eng.fl_str_mv |
Adams, A. (2005). Aborting Roe: Jane Roe questions the viability of Roe v. Wade. A Texas Review of Law & Politics, 9(2). Barsotti, V. (1999). L’arte di tacere (Strumenti e tecniche di non decisione della Corte suprema degli Stati Uniti). Torino: Giappichelli. Casadei, T. (2017). Diritto e (dis)parità Dalla discriminazione di genere alla democracia paritaria, Roma: Aracne. Chen, E. J. (2014). Restoring Rights for Reproductive Justice. IThe American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 22(2). Chieregato, E. (2016). La Corte Suprema condanna la chiusura delle cliniche abortive: un commento a Whole Woman’s Health et al. v. Hellerstedt, in AIC. Dworkin, R. (1996). Freedom’s Law – The moral reading of the american constitution. Oxford University Press, p. 87. Faralli, C. (2015). Donne e diritti. Un’introduzione storica. In: Donne, diritto, diritti. Prospettive del giusfemminismo. Torino: Giappichelli, p.12. Ghorashi, A. R. (2019). When It Comes to Abortion Restrictions, State Legislatures Try Fighting Fire with Fire. Retrieved from: blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu Giolo, O. (2012). Le “periferie” del patriarcato. L’uguaglianza, i diritti umani e le donne, in Th. Casadei (a cura di), Diritti umani e soggetti vulnerabili. Torino: Giappichelli, pp. 119-142. Giordano V. & Langford P. (ed.) (2017). Judical decision-making: Artificio – razionalità – Valori. Torino: Giappichelli, p. 39. Hart Ely, J. (1996). On Constitutional Ground. Princenton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 284. Howe, A. (2014). Court strikes down abortion clinic “buffer zone”: In Plain English, SCOTUS blog (Jun. 27, 2014, 5:22 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/courtstrikes-down-abortion-clinic-buffer-zone-in-plain-english/ Yarnold, B. M. (1995). Abortion Politics in the Federal Courts – Right Versus Right. Westport, Conn: Praeger, p. 10. Linton, B. (2012). The Legal Status of Abortion in the States If Roe V. Wade Is Overruled, By Linton, in Law & Medicine, 27(3). Lonzi, C. (1971). Sessualità femminile e aborti, Milano. Mackinnon, C. (2012). Privacy vs eguaglianza: a partire dal caso Roe vs Wade. In Le donne sono umane? Roma-Bari: Laterza. Pomeranz, J. L. (2019). Abortion Disclosure Laws and the First Amendment: The Broader Public Health Implications of the Supreme Court’s Becerra Decision. American Journal of Public Health, March. Rizzieri, A. (2001). L’aborto nella giurisprudenza della Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti, in La nuova giurisprudenza civile commentata, 3. Scheb, J. M. – Scheb, J. M. II (2002). Foundations of American Law, in An Introduction to the American Legal System, pp. 5-6. Albany, NY: West Thomson Learning. Siegel, R. (2008). Dignity and the Politics of Protection: Abortion Restrictions Under Casey/Carhart. Yale Law Journal, 117, 1694. Siegel, R. (2016). Why the Supreme Court’s new abortion ruling really matters: The standard in Whole Women’s Health vs. Hellerstedt will change law across the nation, in NY Daily News, 27 June 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/reva-siegel-court-new-abortion-ruling-matters-article-1.2690337. Urley, L. H. (2016). Supreme Court firmly backs abortion rights, tosses Texas law. Reuters, 28 June 2016, in http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-abortionidUSKCN0ZC0JL. |
| dc.rights.eng.fl_str_mv |
Vitulia Ivone - 2019 |
| dc.rights.accessrights.eng.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| dc.rights.coar.eng.fl_str_mv |
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 |
| dc.rights.uri.eng.fl_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
Vitulia Ivone - 2019 http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.mimetype.eng.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv |
Soft Power |
| dc.source.eng.fl_str_mv |
https://editorial.ucatolica.edu.co/index.php/SoftP/article/view/3576 |
| institution |
Universidad Católica de Colombia |
| bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/3b8c85f3-e561-4d65-a814-0812076311f9/download |
| bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
e8f98cbc7e1ed564c0f19461ca5365e2 |
| bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositorio Institucional Universidad Católica de Colombia - RIUCaC |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
bdigital@metabiblioteca.com |
| _version_ |
1814256297801940992 |
| spelling |
Ivone, Vitulia3008001a-2ca4-4229-af5f-a6c04e60d5e73002019-07-01T00:00:00Z2019-07-01T00:00:00Z2019-07-01La Corte Suprema americana emitió su decisión en el caso NIFLA v. Becerra, con una votación de 5 a 4, que sostiene que el estado de California no puede obligar a los centros de recursos para el embarazo a hacer publicidad de los servicios de aborto del estado. Esta decisión representa una victoria considerable tanto para el derecho a la libertad de expresión como para los derechos de conciencia de las asociaciones estadounidenses pro-vida. El caso se refería a la Ley sobre la Reproducción de California, que ordenaba que tanto las clínicas de salud para mujeres con licencia como las que no tienen licencia (centros de recursos para embarazadas en crisis) que no realizan abortos deben proporcionar un aviso escrito previamente a los clientes. Aunque la ley se relacionaba específicamente con el aborto, la libertad de expresión era el tema fundamental en juego. Este trabajo analiza la historia del aborto en la legislación estadounidense y la perspectiva de uno de sus derechos civiles fundamentales.The Supreme Court has issued its decision in NIFLA v. Becerra, a 5–4 vote holding that the state of California cannot compel pregnancy-resource centers to advertise for the state’s abortion services. This decision represents a considerable victory for both the right to free speech and the conscience rights of pro-life Americans. The case concerned California’s Reproductive FACT Act, which mandated that both licensed and unlicensed women’s-health clinics (crisis-pregnancy or pregnancy-resource centers) not performing abortions had to provide a pre-written notice to clients. Though the law related specifically to abortion, free speech was the fundamental issue at stake. This paper analyzes the history of abortion in US legislation and the perspective of one of its fundamental civil rights.application/pdf10.14718/SoftPower.2019.6.2.182539-22392389-8232https://doi.org/10.14718/SoftPower.2019.6.2.18engSoft Powerhttps://editorial.ucatolica.edu.co/index.php/SoftP/article/download/3576/3280Núm. 12 , Año 2019 :Julio - Diciembre346123226Soft PowerAdams, A. (2005). Aborting Roe: Jane Roe questions the viability of Roe v. Wade. A Texas Review of Law & Politics, 9(2).Barsotti, V. (1999). L’arte di tacere (Strumenti e tecniche di non decisione della Corte suprema degli Stati Uniti). Torino: Giappichelli.Casadei, T. (2017). Diritto e (dis)parità Dalla discriminazione di genere alla democracia paritaria, Roma: Aracne.Chen, E. J. (2014). Restoring Rights for Reproductive Justice. IThe American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 22(2).Chieregato, E. (2016). La Corte Suprema condanna la chiusura delle cliniche abortive: un commento a Whole Woman’s Health et al. v. Hellerstedt, in AIC.Dworkin, R. (1996). Freedom’s Law – The moral reading of the american constitution. Oxford University Press, p. 87.Faralli, C. (2015). Donne e diritti. Un’introduzione storica. In: Donne, diritto, diritti. Prospettive del giusfemminismo. Torino: Giappichelli, p.12.Ghorashi, A. R. (2019). When It Comes to Abortion Restrictions, State Legislatures Try Fighting Fire with Fire. Retrieved from: blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.eduGiolo, O. (2012). Le “periferie” del patriarcato. L’uguaglianza, i diritti umani e le donne, in Th. Casadei (a cura di), Diritti umani e soggetti vulnerabili. Torino: Giappichelli, pp. 119-142.Giordano V. & Langford P. (ed.) (2017). Judical decision-making: Artificio – razionalità – Valori. Torino: Giappichelli, p. 39.Hart Ely, J. (1996). On Constitutional Ground. Princenton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 284.Howe, A. (2014). Court strikes down abortion clinic “buffer zone”: In Plain English, SCOTUS blog (Jun. 27, 2014, 5:22 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/courtstrikes-down-abortion-clinic-buffer-zone-in-plain-english/Yarnold, B. M. (1995). Abortion Politics in the Federal Courts – Right Versus Right. Westport, Conn: Praeger, p. 10.Linton, B. (2012). The Legal Status of Abortion in the States If Roe V. Wade Is Overruled, By Linton, in Law & Medicine, 27(3).Lonzi, C. (1971). Sessualità femminile e aborti, Milano.Mackinnon, C. (2012). Privacy vs eguaglianza: a partire dal caso Roe vs Wade. In Le donne sono umane? Roma-Bari: Laterza.Pomeranz, J. L. (2019). Abortion Disclosure Laws and the First Amendment: The Broader Public Health Implications of the Supreme Court’s Becerra Decision. American Journal of Public Health, March.Rizzieri, A. (2001). L’aborto nella giurisprudenza della Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti, in La nuova giurisprudenza civile commentata, 3.Scheb, J. M. – Scheb, J. M. II (2002). Foundations of American Law, in An Introduction to the American Legal System, pp. 5-6. Albany, NY: West Thomson Learning.Siegel, R. (2008). Dignity and the Politics of Protection: Abortion Restrictions Under Casey/Carhart. Yale Law Journal, 117, 1694.Siegel, R. (2016). Why the Supreme Court’s new abortion ruling really matters: The standard in Whole Women’s Health vs. Hellerstedt will change law across the nation, in NY Daily News, 27 June 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/reva-siegel-court-new-abortion-ruling-matters-article-1.2690337.Urley, L. H. (2016). Supreme Court firmly backs abortion rights, tosses Texas law. Reuters, 28 June 2016, in http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-abortionidUSKCN0ZC0JL.Vitulia Ivone - 2019info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/https://editorial.ucatolica.edu.co/index.php/SoftP/article/view/3576AbortoSaludDerechosAbortionHealthRightsNational institute of family and life advocates (NIFLA) : V. Becerra, or the right to be informed about your own reproductive rights.National institute of family and life advocates (NIFLA) : V. Becerra, or the right to be informed about your own reproductive rights.Artículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleJournal articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREFinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPublicationOREORE.xmltext/xml2608https://repository.ucatolica.edu.co/bitstreams/3b8c85f3-e561-4d65-a814-0812076311f9/downloade8f98cbc7e1ed564c0f19461ca5365e2MD5110983/29986oai:repository.ucatolica.edu.co:10983/299862024-06-02 14:32:58.893https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/Vitulia Ivone - 2019https://repository.ucatolica.edu.coRepositorio Institucional Universidad Católica de Colombia - RIUCaCbdigital@metabiblioteca.com |